IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30172

In re: CHRISTOPHER FRANK,

Movant

Motion for an order authorizing

the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans to consider

a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Frank, federal prisoner # 01160-748, seeks authorization to 

file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence to life 

imprisonment for conspiring to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. A jury 

convicted Frank of that offense and two firearms charges in 1999, and he 

received a concurrent five-year prison sentence and a consecutive ten-year 

prison sentence for the firearms offenses. His life sentence resulted from the 

district court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 and the cross-reference found at 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1; the district court found that various murders committed in 

furtherance of the conspiracy constituted relevant conduct for purposes of 

sentencing.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30172 Document: 00513946915 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2017
No. 17-30172

2

Frank argues that authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion is 

warranted in light of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), which 

established a new rule of constitutional law that was made retroactively 

applicable to cases on collateral review in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 

718, 736–37 (2016). He contends that Miller renders his life sentence 

unconstitutional because (1) he was sentenced under a mandatory scheme to 

life in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) he was a juvenile—between 

the ages of 14 and 17—when four of the murders in question were allegedly

committed, and he was a “young adolescent”—ages 18 and 19—when the other 

murders were committed; and (3) the district court did not make an 

individualized sentencing decision. We will grant authorization if, as relevant 

here, Frank makes a prima facie showing that his proposed claim relies on a 

new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to 

cases on collateral review. § 2255(h)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (3)(C).

Regardless of whether the guidelines-derived mandatory life sentence 

fell within the Supreme Court’s limitations, Miller is unhelpful to Frank. The 

relevant conduct that formed the basis for the cross-reference to § 2A1.1 

included murders that occurred after he had attained age 18. Thus, Frank has 

not demonstrated that Miller entitles him to authorization to file a successive 

§ 2255 motion. See § 2255(h)(2).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for authorization to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion is DENIED. Frank’s motion for the 

appointment of a neuropsychological expert is also DENIED.

 Case: 17-30172 Document: 00513946915 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2017